Mixed Headstamp brass and the M1 Garand

[chasep255]

I have a bunch of commercial once fired mixed head-stamp brass and I want to reload for my M1. My only concern is that is will not be very accurate. I always load brass of the same head-stamp with my scoped rifle, but will it really make a significant difference in the M1?

[NESHOOTER]

There will always be some difference, now because your garand is or has been change and yes sometimes been kept with same orginal parts or has been rebarreled now as so far as open sights are for me the different poi's are human error if your shooting F-class its a no-no so far a the best possible cartridge to be repeated. So to wrap it up if your talking range fun don't worry and competion whole different matter.

[Jimro]

Honestly it depends on your load and what your accuracy expectations are.

Shooting 150gr M2 or 173gr M72 bullets with a charge of 4895 or 4064 you probably won't see much of a difference between cases.

If you can get 2 minuts with the M2 projectiles and 1 minute with the M72s, you are doing great for a Garand.

Personally I'd give it a shot, it can't shoot any worse than some milsurp ammo out there.

Jimro

[Bart B.]

As I remember, accuracy standards for a service grade M1 is about 3 inches at 100 yards with standard ball ammo. Tried to find MIL SPEC data on line about this but couldn't.

The best of the rebuilt 30 caliber M1 National Match rifles with M72 National Match ammo was about 12 inches (2 MOA) at 600 yards. At 100 yards, they would shoot about 1 inch.

[SonOfGun]

If you lower your standards for reloading do not expect your M1 to perform to high standards.

[Jimro]

Sonofgun,

That is so completely not helpful.

The Garand is a fine rifle. It is just not a benchrest rifle. The charge weights for appropriate powders in the 30-06 case at best get around 90% fill, if that. The case volume difference means less when there is less powder involved (a subject for another thread....)

Bart B. has probably more trigger time on a Garand than anyone else I know, and if he says a minute is match grade, I'll take that to the bank. For what it is worth, an M4 with milspec ball ammo is also a 3 to 4 minute weapon, and gets around 1 minute (to 1.5 minutes) with match grade ammunition.

I'm pretty sure that mixed cases are good enough to put together 3 minute ammo to shoot through a Garand, and probably tighter. Dan Newberry shot a sub minute group using his OCW method using three different brands of brass.

Jimro

[bamaranger]

Loading for a Garand, if done right, is tad more complex than for a bolt rifle.

To avoid slamfire issues, one must pay attention to establishing the headspace on YOUR rifle, then sizing brass accordingly. RCBS sells a "precision mic" which will determine that value, and you can size cases accordingly. Seems like I size my Garand cases .003 less than what I get on the gauge, but I would have to check my notes. I would sort cases by make, size a make to your numbers, then readjust for the next make batch.

Additionally, I would uniform all my primer pockets. Sinclair sold me the tool I use on primer pockets. Finally, be sure and use a mil spec primer, (CCI #34 I think) which will help avoid slamfires.

The Garand can be safely fed handloads, but it is not as forgiving as a bolt rifle in case prep.

[bamaranger]

I think that CMP has a very good tutorial on the subject. If not them, some searching should yield same.

[F. Guffey]

“but will it really make a significant difference in the M1?”

First, I would suggest a reloader that owns a press, die and shell holder learn to use it, then I would suggest the same reloader learn to deterring the length of the chamber from the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face. There is a sequence of events that are repeated over and over on the rleoading forums, stats something like this:

The firing pin strikes the primer, then everything including the case, powder bullet and primer runs to the front of the chamber when it slams into the shoulder of the chamber etc., etc.. Then the sequence of events ends with case head stretch between the case head and case body. All of the above would be true if all receiver designs were the same.

Problem with the M1 Garand, hot, high pressure, metal cutting gas escaping from around the primer when the case head separates from the bolt face. I know, neck size, sounds good, but to get to neck sizing cases for a chamber the case must first be fired in the chamber. Gas cutting, a bolt face can experience gas cutting with one mishap.

Mixed cases, I do not have mixed cases, I am the fan of mixing case head stamps in the case cleaning tumbler then but all the cases back into the box they came in.

F. Guffey

[HiBC]

I recall reading some article from Precision Shooting on loading for NRA High Power /gas guns,such as the M-1

They advocated using the RCBS Precision Mic to control shoulder setback.

As I recall(could be wrong)the desired head clearance was .006.I'm sure it was not less than .004.

The reason had to do with the bolt going to full lockup when the gun was a little tired and dirty.

They discovered different headstamps might have a different springback during sizing,and so require a slightly different die setting to achieve the desired head clearance.

The motive for sorting might be more about proper and safe operation than the last gnat's whisker of accuracy

[Bart B.]

I've shot all sorts of ammo wearing out four match grade M1 barrels chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. Commercial .308 Win. match, arsenal match and service grade ammo as well as a lot of handloads with new cases. Bullet weights ranged from 147 to 190 grains.

Zero's at 200 yards across all of that stuff was within 1/2 MOA of each other for the most part, 1 MOA with 180's and 190's. Of course, at the longer ranges differences got bigger, but then that's understandable.

Shoot your stuff and see what it does.

[schmellba99]

Unless your gun is a NM across the board gun, no, it is not going to make a difference.

While different brands of brass have different specs and case volumes - the same can be said for the same brand of brass in different lots.

It is an open sight, minute of man, weapon built with generous chambers (National Match and custom rifles not withstanding) that was designed to operate in muddy trenches, snow, sand, and any other environment that is not exactly conducive to good firearm maintenance.

Don't over think it. Size to SAAMI, load with proven Garand load data and fire away.

[Bart B.]

Yes, Garands are a weapon built with generous chambers...

Few people realize that chamber size has little to do with accuracy. .30-06 cases center up front at their shoulders in big MIL SPEC chambers quite perfectly. Doesn't matter how much clearance there is around the case. They all have their back end pressed against the chamber wall opposite the extractor anyway but that's not a concern. All the rounds chamber very repeatably each time; accuracy's easily attained.

Good M1903 based match rifles with such chambers back in the 1920's and 1930's would shoot the best lots of arsenal match and reloaded ammo inside 6 inches all day long as tested at 600 yards. Too bad nobody could hold, aim and shoot one consistantly enough to do that on paper. That was as good as bullets, barrels and rifles could do in that era. It wasn't until the 1950's that accuracy improved with better barrels and bullets.

[F. Guffey]

http://www.nrablog.com/post/2011/09/...903-rifle.aspx

You would call him nobody, I call him George R. Farr.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=530243

F. Guffey
Senior Member
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=530243

Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 1,726 I was wondering when someone was going to thumb (scroll) to the 30/06 chamber drawings, match, M1 Garand and the standard 30/06 chamber. Then there was the accuracy change in about 1911 and the ‘Leaver Policy’.

F. Guffey

[Bart B.]

In 1921 when George R. Farr shot that winning score, he did it by shooting 71 shots into the 36" five-ring of the NRA/Military "C" target; all 71 shots did not go inside 6 inches as he shot them but instead were all inside the 5-ring that was 3 feet in diameter. That 6 inch accuracy I mentioned was with a special test barrel in a Mann rest which arsenals testing ammo for accuracy at 600 yards. At 1000 yards, the best ammo would shoot 10 to 12 inches at 1000 yards from a Mann rested test barrel; about 20 inches from the best rifle.

The "C" target was the standard long range competition target for high power rifles at 800, 900 and 1000 yards in the USA from 1876 until the early 1970's. The target was a six by ten foot frame of canvas that had a 36 inch black five ring, or bull's eye, and a 54 inch four ring printed upon it. The remainder of the inner six by six foot section, outside of the rings, was worth three points. A two foot wide panel (called wings) ran down each side and was valued at two points so folks who couldn't dope the wind very well would still catch paper shooting 150-gr. bullets from their .30-06's at about 2700 fps.


In 1922, a 20" "V" ring was added (thanks to Mr. Farr's score a year earlier) inside of the 5-ring to break ties when 2 or more shooters put all 20 record shots for the match into it. Many folks back then put a couple dozen or more shots in the 5-ring during a match in good conditions and shoot-offs had to be fired earlier to decide ties. Good lots of .30-06 ammo was finally being made. That was the first match for the "Farr Trophy" held at the 1922 Nationals. I think that's also the time the 2-point "wings" were removed and target sizes were then 6 feet wide instead.

A good friend set the last record on that old "C" target back in 1970 shooting 42 consecutive shots into the 20 inch V-ring scoring 100-20V + 22V with 20 record shots and 22 in the shootoff for the record.

[F. Guffey]

one minute then calls him Mr. Farr the next.

If it was the rifle, he would have brought one with him, instead he tried one, then swapped it for another, the one he picked was not the bright and shine 'pretty' one, as described it was a WW1 service rifle.

F. Guffey

[Bart B.]

Guffey, I never called George Farr, nor anyone else, a "nobody." Nowhere in print in these forum threads have I done that. For my first reference to him by name, I called him "George R. Farr."

My comment in post 13 in this thread was

Too bad nobody could hold, aim and shoot one consistantly enough to do that on paper.

stating that no human shooter could shoot an M1903 into 6 inches. I didn't state that the standard test range then was 600 yards, so I edited that post to reflect that. And doing that well at 1000 yards with a shoulder fired rifle has never happened; best is a bit over 10 inches for 20 record shots.

Are you up to admitting you were wrong in saying I called George Farr a 'nobody' now?

I sure was incomplete in my comments on the .30-06 accuracy back then by not stating the test range.

[F. Guffey]

A farr more interesting story when people are added to the story.

F. Guffey

[RKG]

Back to the OP's question: I strongly suspect that any print variability attributable to mixed brass will be a tiny fraction of the print variability inherent in the M1 itself or that of the shooter.

[F. Guffey]

“Are you up to admitting you were wrong in saying I called George Farr a 'nobody' now?” No, Before George Farr there was Sargent York, I do not know what rifle Sargent York used, and I do not care.

George Farr arrived at the contest, without a rifle, he choose a rifle from a rack, gave it a road test then exchanged it for another, he did not claim he could not shoot, he decided the problem was with the rifle, he swapped rifles. Now you are saying he had a big target and by another standard he would not not have done as well? One more time, he did not bring a rifle, he picked a rifle off of a rack, he picked another rifle. I will say had the target been smaller he would have continued down the rack until he found a rifle that was accurate enough to compete.

Hind sight is perfect, for all I know you Goggled to CYA.

F. Guffey

[F. Guffey]

"Yes, Garands are a weapon built with generous chambers..."

Bart B. How generous? I am told they did not have the equipment in the old says to distinguish between fit and generous. As usual I try to respond with 'FANTASTIC!'.

I managed to recover a few gages from the closings of manufacturing companies around NYC, one old gage measured down to .000005", seems like a conflict, a gage for measuring something that does not exist.

F. Guffey

[Bart B.]

Guffey:

Now you are saying he had a big target and by another standard he would not not have done as well?

Yes.

...for all I know you Goggled to CYA

No, I didn't put on a pair of goggles to Clear Your (my) visual Acuity. My vision's quite good; near 20-10 according to my opthamologist. I learned all that stuff about names of matches at the Nationals as well as the history of high power rifle targets, rifles and ammo back in the '60's from folks who held the records in them and were still winning them.

[TimSr]

I have a bunch of commercial once fired mixed head-stamp brass and I want to reload for my M1. My only concern is that is will not be very accurate. I always load brass of the same head-stamp with my scoped rifle, but will it really make a significant difference in the M1?

If you are shooting a scoped rifle off a bench rest and printing paper, you will notice. If you are using the original sights, and trying to shoot a pepsi can at 100 yards, you won't know the difference.